Thread

U.S. appeals court upholds designation of Anthropic as supply chain risk

499 points · 900 comments · cramer4next

petcat · 1790353704 · focus · HN ↗
I still don't fully understand what this was about. It sounds like the DoD said they wanted unrestricted access to Anthropic's models, Anthropic refused, so the Pentagon declared that they wouldn't use them at all.
Isn't this basically what Anthropic wanted?
1. sippingabonedry · 1790354258 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. hardbass · 1790354515 · focus · HN ↗
    How is it delusion? If they don't want to work with certain types of government contracts they have the right to state so. Its just thuggery from Trump.
  2. hiddencost · 1790354590 · focus · HN ↗
    This is straight up fascism. The DoD could have simply used a different provider but instead they're trying to destroy anthropic as a company.
    majorchord · 1790355240 · focus · HN ↗
    Is it still fascism if they were properly elected and a court agreed with them?
    hardbass · 1790355361 · focus · HN ↗
    If its this court, then probably yes. They have special treatment of Trump.
    ilikehurdles · 1790356092 · focus · HN ↗
    Is that why he's so mad at their rulings all the time?
    hardbass · 1790356732 · focus · HN ↗
    They aren't yet ready to fully fall down in line and some of the judges are not trumpies.
    rcxdude · 1790355367 · focus · HN ↗
    The most famous example of fascism was democratically elected.
    IX-103 · 1790356162 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes. That's pretty much how it works for fascism. The government uses powers meant for a legitimate purpose to instead intimidate people and the mechanisms of government meant to restrain such abuse fail or are taken over entirely. Have you ever studied history?
    majorchord · 1790364578 · focus · HN ↗
    But the idea is that you don't elect people who would behave that way in the first place. And it's not like anyone is actually canceling elections at this time, so they can be voted out later.
    To me a fascist government would prevent people from being able to take their power away at all, and simply do whatever they want with impunity, but I don't quite see that happening in the US right now. Courts are still ruling against the government, they're largely complying in most ways, and there will still be more elections.
    Are they trying to do some things that smell "fashy"? Maybe. But I still think it's a stretch to say the US government is full blown fascist in the same way we've seen that in the past in some other countries.
  3. [deleted] · 1790354597 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  4. kittikitti · 1790354953 · focus · HN ↗
    Especially since Anthropic themselves have been literally saying that AI might destroy humanity. Why is it a surprise when people take them at their word and designate them a risk to critical infrastructure?
    Side note, the Anthropic bots are astroturfing the comments.
    hardbass · 1790355054 · focus · HN ↗
    I hate communism. I am not a shill for any company. Governments blackmailing private companies is bad no matter what company.
    lukewarm707 · 1790355383 · focus · HN ↗
    personally, i think that anthropic is a supply chain risk. if the ceo writes 'pace the frontier' and wants to be in charge of the product, it's very risky (to the customer).
    anthropic treat customers very badly. they have claude lecture the user about the moral law according to anthropic. they change the product all the time. they have safety refusals to degrade functionality, they have mandatory logging so they spy on how it is used.
    it's unusable for a serious application.
    hardbass · 1790355794 · focus · HN ↗
    Irrelevant. Then the government should just refrain from taking the contract, not use violent force to restrict Anthropic doing business.
    lukewarm707 · 1790356028 · focus · HN ↗
    i don't understand.
    it is a supply chain risk, so they don't want it in the supply chain.
    that's logical.
    hardbass · 1790356206 · focus · HN ↗
    They can just refuse to entertain contracts with them if they dislike it. Why issue a supply chain risk? Its clear and pure thuggery and blackmail.
    ilikehurdles · 1790356568 · focus · HN ↗
    How is this a debate? Anthropic's AI was used in military/defense operations. When Anthropic discovered this and disclosed it publicly, they attempted to revoke access and went after the government demanding it not get used in such a way. This would be a supply chain risk to any government.
    If Lockheed Martin disabled weapons systems when it discovered the Air Force using its fighters over Iranian airspace based on Lockheed's ideological views, I'm pretty sure they would be labeled a supply chain risk at minimum. What is the issue here?
    hardbass · 1790357306 · focus · HN ↗
    The government canceling that specific contract with Anthropic is fine. It is too vast a scope to deny Anthropic to work with any other companies who also happen to be defense contractors.
    lukewarm707 · 1790356593 · focus · HN ↗
    they issued the supply chain risk to get it out of the supply chain.
    they don't want suppliers to use it because it is a supply chain risk.
    the designation stops suppliers from using it.
    it stops it from being in the supply chain.
    petu · 1790360127 · focus · HN ↗
    Devil's advocate, but Anthropic talks a lot about importance of alignment, so.. How can military ensure that their models don't refuse to work just to be malicious?
    Anthropic doesn't provide model w/o guardrails, suppliers have to use public version, newer model releases surely know about it's parent company standoff with the military.. how to prevent model from realizing that it's doing something for the military (supplier) and sandbagging and/or subtly sabotaging the results?
    hardbass · 1790361250 · focus · HN ↗
    That would be stupidity of the government that caused this situation in the first place. Anthropics position was they wanted to have oversight before it was used to kill people. Anthropic was right. The us govt is fucking incompetent and managed to kill an entire girls school using "AI".
    ilikehurdles · 1790356214 · focus · HN ↗
    Correct, from the government's perspective, anthropic is a risk to the supply chain and should not be included in sensitive government contracts.
    hardbass · 1790357232 · focus · HN ↗
    Thats too vast a scope. Whats not to say they start enforcing bans on Anthropic in any branch or usage of Anthropic of your company if your company has entered into a defense contract with the government for something?
    lukewarm707 · 1790357699 · focus · HN ↗
    they should ban it, defense contractors shouldn't be using it XD.
    fable 5.1 doesn't have any option to stop anthropic spying on it. you can't have that...anthropic contractors and actually the rationalist ea clowns themselves don't have security clearance
    hardbass · 1790358003 · focus · HN ↗
    Just saying so doesn't mean shit. The US government should ban you then because I deem you a risk and a terrorist threat.
    lukewarm707 · 1790358698 · focus · HN ↗
    i say it, but you can confirm it yourself.
    not even AWS govcloud can offer fable without anthropic snooping. it is the only model with this problem.
    the pentagon can't force suppliers to require no snooping policies unless they designate the company a risk.
    IX-103 · 1790356242 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    lukewarm707 · 1790358046 · focus · HN ↗
    i think it's a supply chain risk.
    anthropic control it and spy on it, they have ego issues.
    sort of like putin relying on prigozhin.
    john_strinlai · 1790355138 · focus · HN ↗
    >Side note, the Anthropic bots are astroturfing the comments.
    if this is more than "people i disagree with are commenting", you should be messaging hn@ycombinator.com rather than writing it as a side note in your comment.
    hardbass · 1790355234 · focus · HN ↗
    He's probably a maga or adjacent who is pissed Anthropic didn't bend the knee. You don't need to be a shill to hate this horrid abuse of government powers against a private firm.
    kittikitti · 1790355633 · focus · HN ↗
    Anyone who doesn't agree with me must be MAGA, right? You think people who don't like Anthropic are automatically Trump supporters? I have personally experienced how evil Claude is compared with the other options.
    hardbass · 1790355711 · focus · HN ↗
    How is it "evil"?
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790356186 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790356304 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  5. kingstnap · 1790355773 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
2. [deleted] · 1790354263 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
3. hiddencost · 1790354488 · focus · HN ↗
  No. This also means that no companies that work with th DoD can use anthropic models for any purpose.
  1. VWWHFSfQ · 1790354726 · focus · HN ↗
    Dario wanted to sell a $200 million chat bot to the US military and also dictate how it could be used. The government said no. And because of that Claude also cannot be deployed to the GenAI.mil AI infrastructure. This means that any sensitive work for the DoD that uses Claude will go through Anthropic's infrastructure, not the US military-hosted backend.
    So yes obviously defense contractors are forbidden to use it.
    tmvphil · 1790355223 · focus · HN ↗
    If the government wanted to put iPhones in missiles, and apple said "we won't sell you iPhones to put in missiles" would the correct government response be to say "no government contractor can ever use an iPhone".
    VWWHFSfQ · 1790355868 · focus · HN ↗
    The DoD and US military does not allow contractors to use iPhones or anything else that is not backed by government-hosted or compliant infrastructure, such as GovCloud. The fact that the Pentagon and Anthropic could not come to an agreement on the usage and deployment to GenAI.mil means that it can't be used.
    The reasons why are incidental to the requirement for defense contractors.
    Jtsummers · 1790356279 · focus · HN ↗
    > The DoD and US military does not allow contractors to use iPhones
    What are you talking about? That's nowhere close to a true statement.
    VWWHFSfQ · 1790356732 · focus · HN ↗
    > that is not backed by government-hosted or compliant infrastructure, such as GovCloud
    scottyah · 1790357787 · focus · HN ↗
    Wym "backed by"? This makes no sense.
    Jtsummers · 1790358118 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    Jtsummers · 1790357975 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    rayiner · 1790356135 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure why not? The government is just exercising its power as a purchaser.
    felixgallo · 1790357092 · focus · HN ↗
    'why not'? It's retaliatory beyond all proportionality, for one.
    scottyah · 1790357710 · focus · HN ↗
    They are not "just a purchaser" though. It's the world's most powerful organization that is funded by the people and is supposed to be for the people. I'm all for businesses making FAFO decisions, but expect a lot more here.
    rayiner · 1790358282 · focus · HN ↗
    The fact that it’s a publicly funded entity is more reason for it to adopt hardball tactics, not less. It’s similar to FDR’s comments on public sector unions. When the government is the buyer, it’s even more important to get the best deal and terms possible, because it’s the public’s money’s you’re spending and the public’s interest you’re serving.
    scottyah · 1790363156 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly, setting policy for Americans and American companies is extremely important and should not be ego driven. These deals are to improve America, not to look strong.
    rayiner · 1790383086 · focus · HN ↗
    The U.S. military’s policy has always been to secure the absolute best technology for killing people. So the DOD quite reasonably believes that it’s in America’s interest to have the best technology for building AI killing machines with no restrictions from non-military people on how it’s used.
    felixgallo · 1790434072 · focus · HN ↗
    when you say 'quite reasonably', you are aware that no-human-in-the-loop AI kill chains are war crimes, right?
    krapp · 1790434690 · focus · HN ↗
    "maximum lethality, not tepid legality."
    s1artibartfast · 1790415964 · focus · HN ↗
    There are limits.
    I bet they could get a better deals if the military went and started taking hostages to aid in price negotiation.
    After all, getting the best price is in the public interest.
    apawloski · 1790360812 · focus · HN ↗
    Exercising its power as a purchaser is "not buying it" or "choosing a competitor." Instead, this is arbitrarily and capriciously using an administrative mechanism in a novel way to punish a company.
    rayiner · 1790362294 · focus · HN ↗
    The "administrative mechanism" here is just a way of exercising purchasing control. A private company could do the same thing.
    Jtsummers · 1790362775 · focus · HN ↗
    > A private company could do the same thing.
    Probably not, no private company has the ability to tell all its suppliers "thou shalt not do business with <some other company>". They lack the pull to compel them to do so. The closest would be things like what MS did back in the 90s, and got them in hot water with the anti-trust case against them.
    rayiner · 1790363090 · focus · HN ↗
    That's not what happened here. It was "you can't use <some other company> for stuff you do for us."
    Jtsummers · 1790363676 · focus · HN ↗
    Fair, and still not something most companies can pull off. Again, without risking running into anti-trust laws like MS did.
    Do you seriously think that you can go to all your vendors (if you were a business owner) and tell them, "You can't use Atlassian when working on anything you sell us." How will your business actually compel all those vendors to drop their use of Atlassian for that work? How will you verify compliance and why should any of them sign a contract with you with these restriction? And if they do, how will you avoid anti-trust violations because almost certainly the only way you could talk them into signing such a contract would be to be a massive company throwing your weight around (like MS did with hardware OEMs back in the 90s, among other things).
    felixgallo · 1790433915 · focus · HN ↗
    That's not what happened here and you know this. It was, literal quote, "“[e]ffective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.”
    apawloski · 1790362989 · focus · HN ↗
    Private companies are not bound by the first amendment, the fifth amendment, the administrative procedure act, etc.
    s1artibartfast · 1790415720 · focus · HN ↗
    "Lay down on my couch and take off your shirt, or you'll never find work in this town again"
    >I'm just exercising my power as a purchaser.
    No shit. The point is it shouldn't be used that way and that is not what this law is for.
    Should the government be able to designate a company supply chain risk if they don't like the price?
    noahbp · 1790375120 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes-source-reveals-extent-of-system-access/5222658#:~:text=Anthropic%20does,model%2E%22" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes...
    Anthropic did not host the model that the Department of War used. It had, and still has no control over the models it has deployed in classified environments.
  2. Jtsummers · 1790355012 · focus · HN ↗
    > This also means that no companies that work with th DoD can use anthropic models for any purpose.
    No, it does not mean that. I don't know why people have been making this claim. If you work for a company, let's call it X, and your work is not DOD related, let's say you work on a social media service, then X has no reason (from this designation) to prevent you from using Anthropic, it will not impact their defense contracts at all.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790355613 · focus · HN ↗
    People have been making this claim because the Secretary of Defense personally issued a statement demanding that "no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic". We're not going to play this absurd game where government officials issue fascist instructions and we all pretend they said something more reasonable instead.
    Jtsummers · 1790356201 · focus · HN ↗
    Except you and many others are accepting what he said as if it were true, that statement is false. And hiddencost and others are just parroting it instead of describing the real situation.
    This designation means Athropic's systems can't be used in DOD work, but many companies that work with the DOD also do work outside that. That separate work is not restricted with respect to the use of Anthropic's systems. Repeating a lie as if it were true is just dumb, it helps spread that lie.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790356873 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    fragmede · 1790360468 · focus · HN ↗
    > or impeach him
    Well, that was attempted...
    Jtsummers · 1790360741 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you don't like that, and would prefer to discuss a lawful supply chain risk designation, you should convince him to retract the statements or impeach him.
    You're crediting him with much more power than he has, and somehow you think I'm sanewashing by calling a lie a lie. What you're doing is far worse, you're believing his lies.
    Anyways, the statement is false, at least the extent to which being designated a supply chain risk can impact who does business with Anhtropic. There's no need for him to retract it or even to impeach him over it, because any company with a lawyer and a reasonable separation of their commercial and defense work will be able to determine that they can still do business with Anthropic despite the designation. It'll just have to be confined, so long as the designation stands, to their commercial work.
    handoflixue · 1790375256 · focus · HN ↗
    Trump legally doesn't have the authority to start the Iran War.
    I suppose you would have us believe that, therefore, we are not at war with Iran?
    Just because his statement has no legal basis does not mean that it is unreasonable to believe it will be enforced as-stated.
    Indeed, this insistence on prioritizing the written law over the empirical reality borders on the delusional - if concentration camps were not the official policy of Nazi Germany, would you also insist we are making some mistake by "believing the lies" about their existence?
    I just don't get what sort of point you're trying to make here - do you really think that the current US government cannot possibly cause problems for people that violate their unofficial edicts?
    Do you really think a sensible legal department is going to advise their clients to antagonize the administration by using Claude for their "unrelated" commercial work?
    scottyah · 1790358090 · focus · HN ↗
    If AWS employees use Claude to build govcloud, it is a violation of supply-chain. Either Amazon, Microsoft, and Google require their employees to stop using claude or the DoD has to migrate off of these cloud providers.
    Or these companies have to completely split the govcloud work from its commercial offerings (which defeats the whole point).
    Jtsummers · 1790358206 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a DOD related system though. If an Amazon employee uses Claude to change shopping cart behavior, it's not a problem though and Amazon has no reason to stop those employees from using Claude given the supply chain risk designation, except out of an abundance of caution or to kiss Hegseth's ass.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790358892 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    mpyne · 1790380169 · focus · HN ↗
    > What if an Amazon employee uses Claude to develop the S3 storage service, which is a core product offering unrelated to the DoD but also something that will be provided to the DoD in govcloud?
    Honestly that question has been open for as long as GovCloud has been around. I've used it myself as an exercise in pushing within the Navy to adopt public cloud where security requirements permit, rather than forcing everything onto GovCloud.
    After all, if it's the same S3 either way then the real point of security isn't the Amazon datacenter employee changing out dead hard disks in a physical GovCloud datacenter, but the S3 service team developers who are frequently not even American citizens, but whose code may very well go on to touch the most sensitive data the nation generates.
    scottyah · 1790359327 · focus · HN ↗
    That depends on what "change shopping cart behavior" entails though. Sure, if you edit the icon you're pretty safe, but what if the change is a fix so if two people are adding things to the same cart on separate computers, the page will get updated, so they swap out to their webhook library and make a couple edits, but that library is also what powers the UI for the AWS consoles in govcloud?
    Now you're making changes to the source code used in govcloud using claude, a clear supply chain violation.
    It's a very wishy-washy area right now, and the branches are all struggling to figure out how to work around these laws that were mostly intended to keep jobs in the USA but are now hampering productivity. One example is that DoD contractors can't use open source software that has a non-us developer as a core maintainer. Obviously that's extremely hard to track and it's mostly ignored. Pete definitely bit off more than he realized in his effort to seem cool and get what he wanted.
    wat10000 · 1790380149 · focus · HN ↗
    A statement about consequences made by someone in power is not a lie just because it goes beyond what the law says.
    Jtsummers · 1790381243 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
4. HarHarVeryFunny · 1790354633 · focus · HN ↗
  Evidentially not - Anthropic want to do business with the US military, but on their own terms, telling the military what they can and cannot use it for.
  1. hardbass · 1790354916 · focus · HN ↗
    Is that a problem? Are there any special rules (genuinely curious) that allow the military to hijack the management of a private firm?
    sieabahlpark · 1790355372 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    shimman · 1790355372 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, for national security being the biggest one. Also Congress can do whatever they want if they desired. If Congress mandated that all social media companies have to become workplace democracies, that's totally fine and legal.
    We've forgotten what it means to run a society, we're allowed to change rules how we see fit whenever we want to. Only the elites exercise this power, but people have it too.
    hardbass · 1790355584 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not good for the people. Anything that erodes the rights of companies erodes your rights. Private property and being able to run your firm on your own terms applies to everyone. Governments eroding them show they can do the same to you willy nilly.
    miyoji · 1790357143 · focus · HN ↗
    > Private property and being able to run your firm on your own terms applies to everyone.
    In theory, maybe. In reality, this is a privilege for a very small number of rich people.
    > Anything that erodes the rights of companies erodes your rights.
    How absurd. Food safety regulations don't erode my rights one bit, but they do erode the rights of companies to negligently poison me. I guess I'm losing the right to start a food company that poisons people, but I'm happy to forfeit that right in exchange for not being poisoned. We could extend this list of reasonable tradeoffs in which we all exchange the right to treat people poorly for the right not be treated poorly, and we all would benefit.
    Except the people who want to sell poisoned food, those people will be worse off. I am okay with that.
    hardbass · 1790357900 · focus · HN ↗
    Would you like if your company was deemed a supply chain risk if you were in negotiation with the government and they didn't like the terms?
    miyoji · 1790438997 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not arguing that the government's actions towards Anthropic are fair, but you're making the argument that no government should ever be allowed to designate any company as a supply chain risk, and that's ludicrous.
    shimman · 1790362003 · focus · HN ↗
    No, companies have routinely killed millions of Americans for profit. I do not trust companies at all. Attacking companies to provide for Americans has always benefited society as a whole and has always had vast majority of support from voters.
    Also what private property? Most Americans can't afford to buy homes and are being priced out of owning property entirely.
    Corporations have eroded the livelihood of Americans more than the government ever has.
    There is only one class that fights against raising the minimum wage, or establishing a 32 hour workweek, or enacting medicare for all, or providing a society free of pollution and it's always been the corporate class.
    There has been no dominating force that has killed more American civilians than the American corporation.
    Corporations can't even regulate themselves and you're trying to argue that the true enemy is a democratic government? Come on man. These types of retorts does not convince voters (so please continue saying them). Actually go out there and do some deep canvassing.
    People rightfully hate corporations because they are the last vestige of monarchs, oligarchies, and authoritarians that are allowed to ruin + destroy our lives with little repercussions.
    One just has to look at the situation of our deteriorating food safety inspections (that were hallowed out by Musk + DOGE goons FYI) to know that corporations absolutely do not care about public safety over profits. Or health insurance companies that are incentivized to deny Americans life saving care for shareholder profits.
    We have a sick society and it's mostly due to the unabashed influence of corporations over our lives.
    ---
    Also in other comments you seem to be under the impression that corporations should be legally allowed to do what they want with zero government interference? Why do you believe such things over concepts of democracy or regulation?
    Society is allowed to tell someone no, not everyone consents to your beleifs.
    hardbass · 1790362165 · focus · HN ↗
    I fully believe in democracy and regulation. Democracy cannot exist without capitalism and private property. At no point did I say companies should be free to do anything, I said companies should have freedom to enter or not in contracts under any terms they wish with anyone they want.
    Regarding housing crisis, its the "small people" who cause this. I don't know of any large corporation that is NIMBY. If I had it, I'd steamroll NIMBY's houses and declare them a blight, they should agree with it since they regularly call various constructions blights. Places that tries building more housing saw reductions in prices. Its not the fault of corporations if people don't want houses built.
    You can only say corporations "killed" people in abstract ways, governments not only have the legal power to but have routinely murdered millions very directly and physically.
    Even if you believed corporations are authoritarian, its still better to have competing sources of power, not all corporations will always align with the government so it is better for powerful opposition to exist if government turns shit.
    You also mentioned monarchs in your list, fascist italy is a direct example in my favor, the king's ego and his own self interest in his power caused him to continually give friction to Mussolini thus weakening the dictator.
    hardbass · 1790363623 · focus · HN ↗
    If you got the impression I am some kind of libertarian or anarchist, that would be a wrong impression. I probably fall somewhere along the spectrum toward social democracy.
    ThunderSizzle · 1790355374 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the answer is the military finds another vendor willing to deal, or move it in house.
    It's not like Anthropic will be nationalized any more than the bankrupted auto companies of 2008.
    hardbass · 1790355496 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't care what the military does. This is pure thuggery and abuse of the rights of private firms. Any time you contract with the government and they don't like your terms, will they designate you a threat?
    rayiner · 1790356064 · focus · HN ↗
    In this context, that designation just means that the DOD won’t use your product and it’s suppliers can’t use your product for DOD-facing activity. That’s not “thuggery” it’s something any buyer can do. Walmart or whatever could do it too.
    joshuamorton · 1790369625 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't that textbook Tortious interference with a business relationship?
    rayiner · 1790371015 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    s1artibartfast · 1790414845 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it is thuggery. If DOD doesn't want to use anthropic as vendor, thats fine.
    Prohibiting contractors and departments from using it to produce products well within anthropic terms of service has no risk.
    It is petty retaliation and strong arming.
    Imagine if Ford said they weren't interested in building tanks, and then the DoD said employees and contractors can't use Ford for any purpose, because they are a supply chain risk
    ThunderSizzle · 1790419503 · focus · HN ↗
    If Ford told the DoD you can't use the tanks they bought however they need to, and had a kill switch in it in case they wanted to cut the DoD off, then that would obviously be a supply chain risk.
    The military and it's suppliers need mitigate risk, and that includes suppliers intentionally causing harm to soldiers on the front lines, or in the backend logistics supply chain.
    Honestly, every company should be treating Anthropic and OpenAI as supply chain risks, and should completely avoid dealing with them.
    Timon3 · 1790426520 · focus · HN ↗
    > If Ford told the DoD you can't use the tanks they bought however they need to, and had a kill switch in it in case they wanted to cut the DoD off, then that would obviously be a supply chain risk.
    This is a misrepresentation of the situation. Anthropic did NOT sell something to the DoD and then restrict usage - the DoD purchased their offering fully aware of this clause.
    ThunderSizzle · 1790464367 · focus · HN ↗
    The ability by the supplier is the problem, regardless of there is an upfront clause or not. The upfront clause is the problem
    s1artibartfast · 1790467990 · focus · HN ↗
    That's true for every company and every individual involved with the dod. They can all put guns or pencils down and refuse at a future date for a unspecified reason.
    That has nothing to do with supply chain risk designation. That comes from sabotage
    s1artibartfast · 1790434642 · focus · HN ↗
    They won't because Trumps family has billions invested in OpenAI.
    stusmall · 1790355530 · focus · HN ↗
    AFAIK it wasn't in play here, but yes, we do allow that to a degree via the Defense Production Act
    rayiner · 1790355972 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s not a problem. But it’s also not a problem for the DOD to decide that it doesn’t want to use anthropic or have its suppliers use anthropic for DOD matters. The DOD didn’t ban private citizens from using Anthropic. You can sell in your own terms but the DOD can also buy in its own terms.
    bitexploder · 1790357367 · focus · HN ↗
    That is the funny thing to me. I hate diving into politics here on HN, but this has such a rank smell to it. Trump's comments about Dario. His insane propaganda video about how we will never be communist / Marxist. In the same breath our government is bribing people with offers of $$ (the $5,000 checks) and essentially bullying to outright moving towards saying this technology is so powerful we will just have to seize it for our own use.
    It is impossible to miss the absolute hypocrisy of this moment and how people and corporations are supposedly free, but if you happen to be of interest to the government they will try to casually ruin you. It has always been this way, people just haven't noticed because it flies under the radar most of the time when the govern crushes some smaller enterprise or another because it got in their way or didn't play by their rules.
    It seems simple to me. Anthropic is a private company. If you don't like it fix the laws or don't buy from them.
    rayiner · 1790357603 · focus · HN ↗
    You're overlooking the critical difference between the government-as-government and the government-as-purchaser. You have to play on Walmart's terms--which are draconian and exacting--to sell to Walmart. Why should the DOD be any different when it comes to stuff the DOD is buying or indirectly paying its contractors to buy?
    Yeah, the DOD is such a huge purchaser that it can "ruin you" by blacklisting you if you don't play by its terms. The same is true about Walmart if you're a grocery supplier, Apple if you make electronics components, etc. Private companies absolutely exercise their power like that.
    SpicyLemonZest · 1790358339 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm intensely skeptical that Walmart has clauses in its contracts saying that no supplier may use FooCorp software in the process of delivering its goods. If they do I would definitely call that an abuse of corporate power.
    folocitoan · 1790370648 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    mpyne · 1790379775 · focus · HN ↗
    They're not allowed to use it for military work, precisely so that the military supply chain cannot be broken by an unaffiliated private contractor acting at its own behest.
    The Federal government often imposes terms on its contractors that specify what sub-contractors are allowed to do, including "flow down" requirements that ensure these terms are themselves enforced recursively all the way down to leaf suppliers.
    None of those amount to a ban, after all private companies are also able to do the same thing, and often do. E.g. when Apple requires its suppliers to pursue clean energy efforts as in <a href="https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/09/apple-advances-supplier-clean-energy-commitments/" rel="nofollow">https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/09/apple-advances-suppli...
    Turn_Trout · 1790499110 · focus · HN ↗
    > None of those amount to a ban
    Please check your facts. Hegseth originally stated that it would apply to ALL usage by companies that work with the military.
    [1] <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-declares-anthropic-supply-chain-risk/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-declares-anthropic-supp...
    mpyne · 1790564232 · focus · HN ↗
    And the fact is that he had to reverse that position because it was not supportable by the statutory law he was trying to use. So the DoW policy changed.
    I'm a big fan of checking the facts, which is why I encourage you to stay current on the discussion. Companies that do defense work are already familiar with the need to setup corporate structures to ensure that the blast radius of changes to FAR, DFARS, statutory requirements etc. don't reach the main corporate entity.
    Like, the whole term "defense industrial base" is a known category treated as "critical infrastructure" by the U.S. government for years now: <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/defense-industrial-base-sector" rel="nofollow">https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security... and <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47751#_Toc192775742" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47751#_Toc192775742
    The thing that is novel here is that requirements traditionally focused on protecting for undue linkage with potentially-hostile foreign sources are being applied against Anthropic. But it's also novel that Anthropic is trying to apply conditions of use restrictions through its contract with the military.
    I don't personally feel that's novel enough to warrant a ban across the whole supply chain, but that's been the net effect of quite a few other FAR and DFARS restrictions over the years, which have caused companies to either exit the defense space or avoid selling into it in the first place.
    0xdeadbeefbabe · 1790356266 · focus · HN ↗
    The customer is always right. It's more of a tradition.
    topspin · 1790358545 · focus · HN ↗
    "Are there any special rules"
    Yes. Paragraph #1, sentence #1 of the US Constitution: "provide for the common defence[sic]". This is further elaborated upon in other original Constitution articles and subsequent amendments.
    From that, we derive a long, storied history of things, among the more recent of which, and the operative matter here, is the Defense Production Act circa 1950.
    The US is fundamentally based on the obligation of mutual military defense, and delegates the authority to call military balls and strikes, such as who will and will not be permitted to contract with the US military, exclusively to POTUS. Anthropic et al. are way out of their depth when they imagine their "terms and conditions" imbue them with some sort of military veto power in the US. Trump's action here, given his nature, is actually moderate: he could take this much further if he wishes.
  2. theptip · 1790355977 · focus · HN ↗
    Every private citizen or corporation gets to do business (or not) with the military on their own terms. This is the difference between totalitarianism and a free country.
    Anthropic’s position is also known as “having terms of service”.
    To be clear the existing, signed ToS terms that Trump balked at were:
    1. No mass surveillance of US civilians - illegal but we have all read the Snowden papers.
    2. Fully unmanned kill chains on autonomous weapons - Anthropic have even stated they will support this eventually, they just didn’t think their models were ready and didn’t want the obvious, inevitable blowback.
    The DoD is within its rights to cancel the contract if it doesn’t like the terms that it previously signed.
    andrewla · 1790356838 · focus · HN ↗
    The concern, I think, in its most generous terms, is that they can't buy Anthropic's service the way the could, say, a wrench, because Anthropic can decide at any point to disable the military's ability (even transitively, through other vendors) to use their models if they determined that they do not like what the military is doing with that or if it violates their interpretation of the terms of service.
    This seems like a definitional supply chain risk.
    Firaxus · 1790358210 · focus · HN ↗
    By that expansive definition, any cloud software provider can do the same thing and so should also be a supply chain risk.
    This whole fiasco is happening because the defense dept wanted to use anthropic models in a way not allowed in the existing contract. Anthropic stuck to the contract, and the def dept tried to be punitive about it.
    If they can’t get what they want from the seller, fine go to a different seller, but the supply chain risk is just government overreach.
    andrewla · 1790359006 · focus · HN ↗
    I think I mostly agree here -- any cloud provider or frankly SaaS system carries a similar risk. The question is whether they want to explicitly make that part of their terms of service, and in addition have made public statements about their willingness to apply those terms of service.
    AWS GovCloud I believe promises the opposite. They could still do it, in terms of the capability itself, but then they'd be subject to both civil, criminal, and possibly even military consequences. Whereas Anthropic would be shielded from those consequences by the terms of their agreement (presumably; I'm not up to speed on the specifics of their contractual demands. This is just based on the context from this article and the previous appeals case that ruled against the government).
    theptip · 1790363818 · focus · HN ↗
    That is not the definition of a supply chain risk, this is:
    > FASCSA definition (41 U.S.C. § 4713(k)(6)): "Supply chain risk" means the risk that any person may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, extract data, or otherwise manipulate the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, maintenance, disposition, or retirement of covered articles so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise manipulate the function, use, or operation of the covered articles or information stored or transmitted on the covered articles.
    This topic is a mind-killer, lots of uninformed opinion swamping the news, and it's hard to get actual signal on the technical questions at hand. (And, I think it's naive to believe that the government is actually concerned about the precise legal definitions; remember Hegseth decreed that no government sub-contractors would be allowed to transact with Anthropic, despite there being no legal basis for this?)
    > Anthropic can decide at any point to disable the military's ability
    If you're referring to the claims of a killswitch, Anthropic testified under oath that they don't have one. This has been thoroughly covered, e.g. <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/22/anthropic-no-kill-switch-ai-classified-settings" rel="nofollow">https://www.axios.com/2026/04/22/anthropic-no-kill-switch-ai.... Anthropic provides the weights, they get run in DoD's secure enclave. There's no "phone home".
    If you mean more generally, that DoD might breach a contract and then have that contract cancelled going forwards, then yes - this is literally how all SaaS contracts work. And it's very clearly not what the quoted text above refers to.
    The way this works in a non-totalitarian country is, the government says "I want new terms and you won't give them to me; instead I will take my business elsewhere". And indeed this is what happened, DoD now has contracts with Google and OpenAI for equivalent capabilities.
    Just to engage on your terms, with the actual concern you're raising; I would say rather than "FASCSA supply chain risk" a better way of thinking about it is "vendor lock-in". DoD absolutely should not rely on a single vendor for these kinds of capabilities. And most defense spending explicitly contemplates this already. This should be and has been solved through basic procurement practices.
    andrewla · 1790368032 · focus · HN ↗
    This is great context and I feel that this is bringing in a lot of information that I wasn't aware of.
    If what you're saying is true, then there is truly no supply chain risk other than the risk of civil action against the government for violation of terms of service. That seems like a rather weak point on which to balance a "supply chain" risk though.
    theptip · 1790372426 · focus · HN ↗
    To be fair and give the best steelman of the government’s position, see the ruling, it’s quite clear. I linked better analysis in <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49849556">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49849556
    The TL;DR is that this was actually decided on the principle that Anthropic can “manipulate” the defense systems by training Claude to refuse to take certain actions.
    This feels like a parallel construction to me, it wasn’t reported AFAICT at the time of the original drama.
    But yeah, the decision in OP has nothing to do with the contractual terms that everyone has been debating upthread.
    noahbp · 1790374913 · focus · HN ↗
    Anthropic did not have access to the servers where their models were deployed. They were under the control of AWS and Palantir, and they could neither disable, nor modify the model's behavior.
    <a href="https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes-source-reveals-extent-of-system-access/5222658#:~:text=Anthropic%20does,model%2E%22" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/04/01/claude-codes...
5. [deleted] · 1790354641 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
6. fnordpiglet · 1790354942 · focus · HN ↗
  Anthropic isn’t aligned with MAGA political ideology so they found an excuse to abuse power against them, more or less. The excuse was because Anthropic prohibits the use of their models for autonomous killing without a human in the loop they were declared a threat to national security on par with Iran or North Korea from a supply chain perspective in the military. OpenAI then rushed in and volunteered to build the slaughterbots ASAP, likely specially tuned to whomever Trump has taken a disliking to in his ambien stupors. Welcome to the future!
7. wyager · 1790355680 · focus · HN ↗
  The Pentagon is trying to bully contractors into also not using Anthropic's models
8. tcdent · 1790355688 · focus · HN ↗
  As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.
  Which sounds sensible on the surface, until you realize that all military organizations have extensive experience with that exact question, and have spent centuries refining their practices. Deferring that to a private company is actually a major regression and a concerning role to pass on to the public regardless.
  FWIW I am not pro military, but it's a prominent part of human culture and not going away anytime soon. I do understand the nature of professions, however, and only one of these groups has made the interpretation of this question their specialization.
  1. daveidol · 1790356307 · focus · HN ↗
    You raise an interesting point. Although wouldn’t Anthropic be the best experts on when a model would be most applicable or likely to falter?
    I guess my opinion would really depend on the exact wording and details of the arrangement. Lots of people jumping in with strong stances based on pretty limited details.
    tcdent · 1790356675 · focus · HN ↗
    On faltering: the US Military already has rules around the use of automated systems for this type decision making. This is not a new concept to them by any means, and currently it always involves a human decision.
    garciasn · 1790356947 · focus · HN ↗
    But, yet, because the technology has advanced so very rapidly and large bureaucratic organizations cannot keep up, we almost went to war w/China because of it.
    I am going into this eyes open and realize that we did indeed stop it before we hit the button, but when there is immense political pressures over career military experts, we may end up with someone ignoring those HITL stops.
    sfink · 1790370443 · focus · HN ↗
    Anthropic agreed to uses that involve a human decision, so this is a non sequitur.
    The whole conflict is specifically about uses that do not involve a human decision. The DoD agreed to a contract that said it wouldn't use Anthropic for that, and then tried to change the terms.
    Incidentally, the DoD used Claude in its decision that resulted in killing 120 children at an elementary school for girls. The Pentagon concluded that there was human review (which would mean that it fell within the contract's terms) but that the review was hollowed out (which could mean that it was a violation of the contract).
  2. hardbass · 1790356572 · focus · HN ↗
    Frankly I would trust Anthropic much more than the US military with human lives.
    scottyah · 1790357555 · focus · HN ↗
    Would you still in 10yrs? 30? When all the current employees have left, and anti-Western people make most of the decisions?
    hardbass · 1790357754 · focus · HN ↗
    Anti western people are already in the government now. I'd worry about the present than future hypotheticals.
    esafak · 1790358838 · focus · HN ↗
    Which part of the military? I would trust the rank and file. The commander in chief?
    hardbass · 1790358964 · focus · HN ↗
    Whichever part caused the girl school to be hit. Which has to be multiple levels for it to occur.
    myko · 1790360134 · focus · HN ↗
    The DoD is blaming AI for this (you are of course right though)
    hardbass · 1790360223 · focus · HN ↗
    Anthropic is vindicated in that you need oversight over AI being used to kill people, the USA military clearly showed itself incapable of wielding that responsibility.
    karmasimida · 1790361563 · focus · HN ↗
    I don’t, for profit company you say, nah
    Analemma_ · 1790362354 · focus · HN ↗
    The US military has assassinated American citizens with no judicial review, Anthropic has not.
  3. felixgallo · 1790357000 · focus · HN ↗
    you understand wildly incorrectly; please go and do some research.
  4. cubefox · 1790357287 · focus · HN ↗
    > As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.
    This is false. Anthropic wanted assurance that its technology would not be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance.
    tcdent · 1790357753 · focus · HN ↗
    > [Anthropic] would not permit its technology to power fully autonomous weapons without human oversight over targeting and firing decisions. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the Pentagon should have unrestricted access to AI systems for “any lawful purpose” and that a private contractor should not be permitted to dictate how the military can use its technology.
    It's about them maintaining an interpretation of law at all.
    Simpletons read that as: "The DOW wants to kill people with AI."
    <a href="https://www.pearlcohen.com/anthropic-sues-department-of-defense-over-supply-chain-risk-designation/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pearlcohen.com/anthropic-sues-department-of-defe...
    simianwords · 1790361722 · focus · HN ↗
    well if you were Anthropic and you didn't want the government using your technology in these ways, how would you phrase it? What else would you have done?
    cubefox · 1790362077 · focus · HN ↗
    > Simpletons read that as: "The DOW wants to kill people with AI."
    The DoW actually used AI in the Iran war, which led to them attacking a school and killing more than a hundred childrem. That's exactly what Anthropic wanted them to prevent. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-iran-school-attack/" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-iran-school-attack/
    tcdent · 1790370529 · focus · HN ↗
    The DoD has been using AI for engagement since the 80s. Maven, the system used in your example has been active since 2017.
    None of those systems pull the trigger. They assemble data for human review.
    noahbp · 1790374596 · focus · HN ↗
    You seem to be misunderstanding the facts. Claude was already used by the US Military, under an existing contract between Anthropic and the US Department of War.
    The core dispute was the US Military deciding it needed to renegotiate this contract, but without Anthropic's two red lines: No fully autonomous weapons (i.e., zero humans in the loop), and no mass domestic surveillance.
  5. SillyUsername · 1790358035 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, that's exactly why they used AI to blow up a school murdering a load of kids.
    That kind of extensive experience.
    Anthropic did the morally right thing and are being punished for it. The case in point justifies their position.
    As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
  6. everforward · 1790360081 · focus · HN ↗
    Militaries have a lot of experience, and an exceptionally poor track record.
    I don’t remember the last war that didn’t have credible evidence of war crimes occurring. Were bombing civilian infrastructure in Iran, Iraq had Abu Ghraib among all the Collateral Damage stuff, the Highway of Death in the Gulf was probably a war crime, Vietnam had My Lai, WWII was the advent of carpet bombing civilian infrastructure. I can’t think of any for Korea, but I also know very little so that doesn’t say much.
    We still haven’t charged anyone for the second strike on that fishing boat in South America, and I haven’t heard a single rationale for why that’s not a war crime other than “fog of war”.
    The US doesn’t even really have a meaningful system for finding and prosecuting these, because we aren’t signatories for the ICC and have a bill saying we’ll invade if they charge one of our service members with a war crime. We aren’t basically the furthest thing from having any experience prosecuting war crimes. I can probably count on my fingers the number of cases we’ve tried. We rarely charge our own service members, and we usually kill foreign combatants rather than capture and charge them.
    tcdent · 1790361030 · focus · HN ↗
    A poor track record compared to who? The Romans?
    War includes death by design. The trajectory is trending toward less unjustified death.
    daedrdev · 1790378853 · focus · HN ↗
    The US could carpet bomb their enemies like they did in WW2, instead they pursue one of the lowest civilian casualty methods of in the history of the world, and nobody even cares because somehow that’s not good enough
    whatisthiseven · 1790408995 · focus · HN ↗
    What makes you think these targeted strikes are any better? Did the school girls say, "o, but at least our entire city wasn't carpet bombed like an obvious war crime, instead we were drone strikes in such a morally ambiguous way. O well"
    No.
    And why did America have so many enemies???
    Maybe because we keep finding excuses to invent them, and then does hundreds of "morally grey" bombings. But at least it wasn't another Vietnam, right?
    What a low bar.
    everforward · 1790460043 · focus · HN ↗
    Bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime because the end state is the same as bombing civilians. Killing power shuts down hospitals and emergency responders (generators run out eventually) and desalination plants. The military is largely unphased, they’re the first ones to get gas for generators.
    Also, this is carpet bombing. Carpet bombing is the targeting of civilian infrastructure with effectively willful ignorance of the collateral damage.
    We started a war knowing the only way to win was either boots on the ground or war-criming our adversary into submission. We don’t get to pretend our hands are tied and we have to send out the bombers. We don’t have to do this because Iraq forces us to, we have to do this because we elected a man who can barely read Post It notes and ignored half a century of military intelligence. We are at fault for every dollar of damage caused to infrastructure and every life lost.
  7. folocitoan · 1790370458 · focus · HN ↗
    >Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.
    They wanted assurances that it would not be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. They did not request to be "in the loop".
    Furthermore, even if Anthropic had requested that, it would be a reason for the DoD to cancel the contract because the terms were unacceptable, not to declare Anthropic a supply chain risk. Declaring them a supply chain risk requires proving that they intended to sabotage their own product, adding malicious functionality. There is no evidence whatsoever that they planned to do that.
    <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthropic-pentagon-supply-chain-risk-lawsuit/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthropic-pentagon-supply-chain...
  8. tastyface · 1790373490 · focus · HN ↗
    120 Iranian schoolgirls would have loved to hear this lecture.
  9. noahbp · 1790374303 · focus · HN ↗
    >As I understand it cane down to one point: Anthropic wanted the ability to review actions that would have an effect on human life.
    This is not at all what happened. The existing contract that Anthropic had with the government had two red lines: No autonomous weapons (i.e., do not build Skynet with Claude), and no mass domestic surveillance.
    Anthropic did not, and does not want, any case-by-case veto power over the US Military's use of their AI models. The red lines were negotiated ahead of time.
  10. adastra22 · 1790405608 · focus · HN ↗
    Downvoted for misinformation, likely out of ignorance, despite the reasonable argument made on top of it. Anthropic was not asking for the ability to review and block particular uses. Those are classified and wouldn’t even be running on Anthropic’s servers. They just wanted the government to promise not to use it for killing people without a human in the loop.
  11. trashface · 1790469629 · focus · HN ↗
    > Which sounds sensible on the surface, until you realize that all military organizations have extensive experience with that exact question
    Tell that to a certain school in Iran
9. cubefox · 1790357186 · focus · HN ↗
  No it's not. Anthropic didn't want an AI to make battlefield decision on who gets killed because it's too unreliable. That doesn't mean they don't want AI used in the military supply chain.
  And it also doesn't mean that Anthropic is a supply chain risk merely for not wanting AI to be the active decision maker in live or death situations in war.
  And Anthropic's objection was recently confirmed: the US military blew up a school in Iran due to an AI error, and killed more than a hundred kids.
10. bradleybuda · 1790363834 · focus · HN ↗
  And crucially, the DoD, through the normal procurement process, agreed to Anthropic’s terms and made the purchase. Much later, the Secretary of Defense threw a political fit and tried to change the terms.
11. sfink · 1790369849 · focus · HN ↗
  You're skipping the supply chain risk designation, which is an extraordinary and punitive measure. Without that part, you'd be correct that this is a nothingburger. "Government decides to not renew contract with corporation X and goes with Y instead" is not headline news.
12. folocitoan · 1790369970 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
13. vayup · 1790372580 · focus · HN ↗
  They also effectively said that military contractors and their subcontractors cannot use Anthropic - that's a significant part of the economy. I mean technically, they can use Anthropic for non-military work. But in practice, they will choose not use it at all, since it's a better approach to show compliance.
14. DirkH · 1790530679 · focus · HN ↗
  I can build a super bioweapon that can kill millions and I don't trust the US military to use it responsibly.
  The US military asks me to build the super bioweapon. I say no thanks, please ask someone else, but happy to keep selling you bioweapons I think is safe enough.
  I get designated an evil unamerican supply chain risk that nobody in the US military may do business with even though I was still happy to sell my safer bioweapons.
  That is the tl;dr

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.